K.M.A., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and her probation revoked based on an affidavit that failed to specify which probation conditions were violated. The appellate court reversed, holding that revoking probation without charging specific violations in the affidavit constitutes fundamental error depriving the juvenile of due process.
A probation revocation based on conduct not alleged in the charging document violates due process and constitutes fundamental error. The affidavit must specify the conditions allegedly violated, and the revocation order must include specific findings regarding which conditions were breached. The probation revocation is reversed and remanded for reinstatement.
[1] A court commits fundamental error when it revokes probation based on conditions not specified in the charging document.
[2] A revocation order is invalid if it fails to include specific findings detailing which probation conditions were violated.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is not proper for a court to find a violation based on conduct not alleged in the affidavit of violation of probation.”
Establishes the core rule that probation violations must be specifically alleged in the charging document
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M.A., a 15-year-old, pleaded no contest to possession of cannabis and was placed on six months of probation with adjudication withheld in December 2…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uncharged Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
K.M.A. appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her probation, adjudicating her delinquent, and committing her to a moderate risk facility. The State concedes and we agree that it was fundamental error to revoke K.M.A.’s probation where the charging document did not state what conditions of probation were violated and the revocation order did not include specific findings. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of K.M.A.’s probation.1
K.M.A., a fifteen-year-old dependent child, entered a no contest plea to possession of cannabis. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed K.M.A. on six months of probation in December 2011. Before her probation terminated, K.M.A. was placed with an aunt in Ohio; however, that placement did not work out and she was returned to Florida in April 2012. As her case manager drove her from the airport to her residence, K.M.A. jumped out of the ear at a stoplight and fled. About ten days later she was picked up and placed into secure detention for twenty-one days. Meanwhile, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed, which described K.M.A.’s escape from her guardian’s car but failed to charge her with violating any specific terms or conditions of probation.
Despite the fact that the affidavit of violation of probation failed to list specific conditions that K.M.A. violated, the circuit court revoked her probation and committed her to a moderate risk facility. At the hearing, the circuit court concluded that when K.M.A. jumped out of her guardian’s car, she knew that she was violating probation conditions prohibiting her from leaving home without permission and requiring her to keep her parents advised of her whereabouts at all times. But these specific violations were not alleged in the affidavit, and the trial court committed error when it found that K.M.A. violated her probation based on uncharged conduct. See Joslin v. State, 984 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“It is not proper for a court to find a violation based on conduct not alleged in the affidavit of violation of probation.”).
Furthermore, because the affidavit failed to cite any specific conditions that K.M.A. allegedly violated, K.M.A. appeared at the hearing without adequate notice of the charges against her. “[Revoking an individual’s probation for conduct not alleged in the charging document deprives the individual of due process and constitutes fundamental error.” Wells v. State, 60 So.3d 551, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, even if K.M.A. had been adequately charged and found to have violated specific conditions, the failure of the trial court to specify the conditions violated in the revocation order would have been reversible error. See McRae v. State, 88 So.3d 384, 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (observing, in another case in which the State conceded error, that “the trial court committed reversible error by failing to specify what condition [the defendant] violated in its order revoking probation”).
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order revoking K.M.A.’s probation and committing her to a moderate risk facility *1002and remand for reinstatement of K.M.A.’s probation.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.S. v. State, 267 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…nuing probation or postcommitment probation.”). When the record does not contain such an order, “it is appropriate to remand for entry of a proper order.” M.A.L., 110 So. 3d at 498 (quoting Robinson, 74 So. 3d at 572); see also K.M.A. v. State, 125 So. 3d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). We affirm the court’s imposition of the sexual offender registration requirement but remand for the entry of a written order revoking D.S.’s post-commitment probation and, based on his admission, specifying which prob…
Authorities Cited
- McRAE v. State, 88 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Wells v. State, 60 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Robbins v. State, 60 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Joslin v. State, 984 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)